Polarized response of endothelial cells to invasion by<i>Aspergillus fumigatus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hyphal invasion of blood vessels is a prominent feature of invasive aspergillosis. During invasive pulmonary aspergillosis, Aspergillus fumigatus hyphae invade the abluminal endothelial cell surface, whereas they invade the luminal endothelial cell surface during haematogenous dissemination. We investigated the endothelial cell response to abluminal and luminal infection with A. fumigatus hyphae in vitro. We found that these hyphae invaded the abluminal endothelial cell surface without inducing the formation of endothelial cell pseudopods. Also, the internalized hyphae were surrounded by a loose network of microfilaments. In contrast, A. fumigatus hyphae invaded the luminal endothelial cell surface by inducing by the formation of endothelial cell pseudopods. These endocytosed hyphae were surrounded by a tight network of microfilaments. Abluminal infection induced greater E-selectin, IL-8, tissue factor and TNF-alpha gene expression, but less endothelial cell damage than did luminal infection. Endothelial cell stimulation by infection of either surface was mediated by endothelial cell-derived TNF-alpha, and was not influenced by gliotoxin secreted by A. fumigatus. These differences in the endothelial cell response to abluminal versus luminal infection may contribute to differences in the pathogenesis of invasive versus haematogenously disseminated aspergillosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".